PROPOSED new powers for councils to close off alleyways which are a magnet for anti-social behaviour have been welcomed by Worcester MP Mike Foster.

Mr Foster told the Commons last night that gating orders could put an end to "unacceptable behaviour" in alleys such as that backing on to Worcester's Fairway, between Otley Close and Tolladine Road.

"The pathway is unlit and contains two 90-degree turns, so people cannot see from one end to the other," he said.

"Certain individuals have used that footpath to push over brick walls, damage fences and urinate into people's gardens.

"That is unacceptable behaviour, and gating orders might enable us to end such problems."

The MP said the "gating" orders could also be used to prevent older youths abusing children's play areas such as those in Barley Crescent and Tolladine Road.

He said: "The play areas also attract individuals using and abusing drugs and other illegal substances."

Mr Foster was speaking during a debate on the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill, which Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett said would make Britain "cleaner, safer and greener".

As well as gating orders, the legislation will allow local councils to levy on-the-spot fines of up to £75 for littering, painting graffiti, fly-posting and dog fouling.

Mr Foster said new litter cleaning powers will be "much welcomed" in Worcester.

"I have walked Teme Road and Avon Road with the chief executive of the city council," he said.

"Those areas are a disgrace and certain individuals are letting down the neighbourhood."

He added: "I welcome the fixed penalty notice scheme and the different treatments that the council can apply.

"If the litter and waste are seen to be detrimental to the amenity of the locality, the local authority can take action, rather than having to wait to see whether an environmental health hazard is posed by all that litter and waste."

Worcestershire Conservatives Peter Luff, Sir Michael Spicer, Bill Wiggin and Julie Kirkbride supported a motion rejecting the Bill.

The motion said that the Bill contained "many unnecessary provisions which would not be needed if existing legislation were properly enforced".

But the motion was defeated by 356 to 151 and the Bill was passed.